Report on ROTC Recruitment on Campus - uclgbtia

<strong>Report</strong> on ROTC Recruitment on Campus
Created by Ryan Weber (weber@ucsc.edu)
Contents:
• UCSC Career Center Policy
• NACE Principles for Employment Professionals
• NACE Principles for Career Service Professionals
• 1984 UCOP Letter to Chancellors
• STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
• 1983 UC POLICY ON NONDISCRIMINATION ON BASIS OF SEXUAL
ORIENTATION
• AALS Position on the Military’s "Don’t ask, don’t tell" Policy
• Ameliorative Measures
• 2002 Dean Robert C. Clark Announces Change to HLS Military
Recruiting Policy
UCSC Career Center Policy
Career Center guidelines have been established in accordance with the
suggested principles of the National Association of Colleges and Employers
(NACE) and the policies of other University of California campuses.
Career Center facilities and job listing services are not available to employers
who unlawfully discriminate in the selection of employees on the basis of national
origin, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, disability, age or any other basis
prohibited by applicable law
NACE Principles for Employment Professionals
6. Employment professionals will maintain equal employment opportunity (EEO)
compliance and follow affirmative action principles in recruiting activities in a
manner that includes the following:

a) Recruiting, interviewing, and hiring individuals without regard to race,
color, national origin, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, or disability,
and providing reasonable accommodations upon request;
b) Reviewing selection criteria for adverse impact based upon the
student's race, color, national origin, religion, age, gender, sexual
orientation, or disability;
NACE Principles for Career Service Professionals
6. Career services professionals will maintain EEO compliance and follow
affirmative action principles in career services activities in a manner that includes
the following:
a) Referring all interested students for employment opportunities without
regard to race, color, national origin, religion, age, gender, sexual
orientation, or disability, and providing reasonable accommodations upon
request;
b) Notifying employing organizations of any selection procedures that
appear to have an adverse impact based upon the student's race, color,
national origin, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, or disability;
12. Career services professionals will promote and encourage acceptance of
these principles throughout their educational institution, and will respond to
reports of noncompliance.
1984 UCOP Letter to Chancellors
July 27, 1984
CHANCELLORS
Dear Colleagues:
On June 17, 1983, the Board of Regents approved a policy statement which
read, in part:
It is the intent and direction of the Board of Regents that the University's
policy against legally impermissible, arbitrary, or unreasonable
discriminatory practices shall be understood and applied so as to prohibit
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. As specified in that
policy, all groups operating under The Regents, including administration,
faculty, student governments, University-owned residence halls, and

programs sponsored by the University, are governed by this policy of
nondiscrimination. [Emphasis added]
Current Department of Defense policy states that "homosexuality is incompatible
with military service." Because of the policy, which has been unsuccessfully
challenged in Court, homosexuals may not serve in the armed forces; nor will the
armed forces recruit homosexuals. The Department has also issued a regulation
which states that funds appropriated by the Department may not be used at any
institution of higher learning or a "subordinate element" of the institution "if
military recruiting personnel are being barred by the policy of the institution from
the premises of the institution."
You may remember that in February, 1984 I reported to The Regents on the
implementation of the 1983 policy on sexual orientation. My report stated, in part,
that the University policy permitting on-campus recruitment by military recruiters
was not inconsistent with The Regents policy statement on sexual orientation.
The Regents policy statement applies specifically to groups operating under The
Regents and does not speak to the use of University facilities by groups or
individuals not operating under The Regents. It was not the purpose of The
Regents policy to establish employment criteria for third parties which exceed or
are inconsistent with these otherwise provided under law. Beyond that, military
recruiters are officials of the United States Government engaged in lawful
pursuits as part of their official duty, and it would be inappropriate for the
University to interfere with their recruitment activities.
Accordingly, campus recruitment programs which are open to employers
generally shall not exclude military recruiters or other employers because of
practices that are not impermissible under law. Placement centers may require
employers to certify that in using University facilities they will not engage in
discriminatory employment practices in violation of applicable federal or state
law. A model statement of compliance appropriate for this purpose is attached.
Sincerely,
David Pierpont Gardner
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
As a condition to [employer's] use of [unit or department's] facilities, employer
agrees that in conducting its efforts to recruit University of California students as
prospective employees it will not engage in legally impermissible discriminatory
practices.
POLICY ON NONDISCRIMINATION ON BASIS OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION
Approved June 17, 1983

It is the intent and direction of the Board of Regents that the University's policy
against legally impermissible, arbitrary, or unreasonable discriminatory practices
shall be understood and applied so as to prohibit discrimination on the basis of
sexual orientation. As specified in that policy, all groups operating under The
Regents, including administration, faculty, student governments, Universityowned
residence halls, and programs sponsored by the University, are governed
by this policy of nondiscrimination.
The policy and its specific application to sexual orientation discrimination shall be
appropriately publicized and disseminated within the University.
The President shall review University nondiscrimination policy statements and
revise such statements as appropriate to include sexual orientation among
listings of prohibited forms of discrimination. The President is requested to report
to the Board of Regents at its February 1984 meeting actions taken regarding
this matter.
AALS Position on the Military’s "Don’t ask, don’t tell" Policy
Under AALS Memorandum 96-15, the AALS has taken the position
that the so-called "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy (10 U.S.C. s 654) still
requires military recruiters "to operate in a fashion that constitutes
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, since gay and
lesbian individuals bear a special burden that denies equal
opportunity in a military employment setting."
Carl C. Monk, the AALS Executive Director, stated in a
memorandum dated August 13, 1997, to all deans of member and
fee-paid schools, that the AALS Executive Committee will:
excuse non-compliance with Executive Committee
Regulation 6.19 only for military recruiters, as long as
a school provides ‘amelioration’ in a form that both
expresses publicly the law school’s disapproval of the
discrimination against gays and lesbians by the
military and provides a safe and protective
atmosphere for gay and lesbian students. (emphasis
added)
That is, "schools that choose not to comply [with Regulation 6.19]
will have their noncompliance excused so long as they engage in
appropriate activities to ameliorate the negative effects that
granting access to the military has on the quality of the learning
environment for its students, particularly its gay and lesbian
students." (emphasis added)
Ameliorative Measures

• Posting notices alerting students, and everyone else in the law school
community, that the military discriminates on a basis not permitted by the
school's nondiscrimination policy and the AALS bylaws, and that the
school is permitting the military to interview only because of the loss of
funds that would otherwise be imposed under the Solomon Amendment
(Although the AALS generally does not mandate any particular type of
amelioration, some posting of this type is required.);
• Sending a letter from deans to students, detailing the history of the
school's nondiscrimination policies; the enactment of the Solomon
amendments; the change of campus policies in response; and the
commitment to creating a hospitable educational environment for all
students;
• Sending letters from law faculty to members of Congress, protesting the
military's policy of discriminating against gays and lesbians, expressing
disapproval of the Solomon amendments, and asking that they repeal the
Solomon-Pombo amendment;
• Establishing a bulletin board on which to encourage faculty and students
to express their views about military policies;
• Hosting student forums at which students and others can discuss
discrimination by the military;
• Establishing a "Safe Zone" program which teaches faculty, staff, and
students about sexual orientation and trains them to respond sensitively to
the concerns of gays and lesbians;
• Actively supporting gay and lesbian student organizations;
• Funding students to attend the annual Lavender Law conferences,
allowing them to establish networking connections with many lawyers
throughout the nation who are openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual;
• Exploring possibilities for fund exchanges within the university to see
whether exposure to Solomon Amendment sanction might be reduced to a
level at which the school could resume application of its nondiscrimination
policy to military recruiters;

• Establishing a permanent faculty-student-staff task force to develop and
implement a series of active institutional and individual counter-measures;
• Participating in legal and political challenges both to the Solomon
Amendment and the policy of discrimination by the military;
• Providing funding and support for an annual symposium on the issues
raised by the Solomon Amendment;
• Purchasing tickets for a fund-raising event each year for a gay and lesbian
legal organization.
Dean Robert C. Clark Announces Change to HLS Military Recruiting Policy
August 26, 2002 -- 1:30 p.m.
The following is a memo from Dean Robert C. Clark to the Harvard Law School
community outlining changes to the school's military recruiting policy for the
2002-2003 academic year.
This academic year, for the first time since this School adopted a policy
prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, the U.S. military will
be allowed access to the facilities and services of the Law School's Office of
Career Services ("OCS"). Because of the significance of this decision, I write to
inform you of the history of this issue at the Law School and the path that led to
this course of action.
At the outset, I would emphasize that the decision is the product of intense
discussion and careful deliberation after the military raised the issue with new
rigor this year. Regrettably, no reasonable alternative was available that could
satisfy the disparate views on this issue. I have personally struggled with this
issue, because I recognize the pain that some members of the community
(especially our gay and lesbian students) will endure because of the change in
practice. For many of us, a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation reflects a fundamental moral value. There are numerous ways to
express this value and pursue its implementation, however. Our decision to
permit military recruiters access to the facilities and services of OCS does not
reduce the Law School's commitment to the goal of nondiscrimination on the
basis of sexual orientation.
Our policy has long provided that any employer who recruits at Harvard Law
School and utilizes the services of OCS must sign a statement indicating that it
does not discriminate on various bases, including on the basis of sexual
orientation. Because the military has not signed such a statement, it has not
been permitted to utilize the services of OCS in the past.

At issue for several years, however, has been the interpretation of a federal
statute commonly known as the Solomon Amendment. This statute, enacted in
1996, denies certain federal funds to an educational institution that "prohibits or
in effect prevents" military recruiting. The regulations implementing the statute
state that if an educational institution does not provide "requested access" to
campus, the institution will lose its federal funds unless the institution can
demonstrate "that the degree of access by military recruiters is at least equal in
quality and scope to that afforded to other employers." 32 C.F.R. 216.4(c)(3).
In 1998, the Air Force asked us for information to determine whether we were in
compliance with the Solomon Amendment. I responded at that time by pointing
out that the military has been able to recruit effectively at the Law School via a
different route—namely, the Harvard Law School Veterans Association
("HLSVA"), a recognized student organization. As you may know, any official
student organization at the Law School may invite any person or organization
onto campus. HLSVA has invited military recruiters and has facilitated their
efforts at HLS. In 1998, after I explained our nondiscrimination policy for OCS
and the practice of having the military recruit through HLSVA, the Air Force
determined that we were in compliance with the Solomon Amendment.
In December 2001, the Air Force made another inquiry on the subject. Our initial
response mirrored the response we sent in 1998. However, although our
practices had not changed since then, apparently the Air Force's interpretation of
the Solomon Amendment had changed. On May 29, 2002, the Air Force notified
me that it no longer views our policy as being in compliance with the law. The Air
Force's letter said that unless the School showed by July 1, 2002 that our
"policies and practices had been modified to conform with federal requirements"
they would "forward this matter to the Office of the Secretary of Defense with a
recommendation of funding denial."
In light of the Solomon Amendment, our refusal to permit military recruiters
access to the services of OCS would make the entire University ineligible for
appropriations from the Departments of Defense, Transportation, Health and
Human Services, Education and related agencies. The Law School does not
receive significant federal funding, and our participation in federally sponsored
student loan programs would not be at risk. The University, however, annually
receives approximately $328 million from the federal government, which
comprises approximately 16% of its operating budget.
Because our recruitment practices have implications well beyond the Law
School, I went outside (as well as inside) the Law School to discuss this issue. In
summary, I studied the matter with the University's General Counsel extensively
over the summer, and I consulted with Harvard's President. I also met with the
Law School Placement Committee and took counsel from other faculty members
and senior administrators of the Law School. At my request, the Placement
Committee contacted the leadership of HLS LAMBDA, to inform them of the
situation and solicit their input to our response. In reply to our request for more
time to study the issue, the Air Force granted us a one-month extension, and on

July 29th I informed the Air Force of our decision to permit military recruiters to
use OCS.
In the end, the decision to allow the military to recruit on campus recognizes the
extraordinary impact a prohibition of recruitment through OCS would have had on
the University. I believe a significant majority of the Law School's students,
faculty and staff oppose all forms of discrimination based on sexual orientation.
At the same time, most of us reluctantly accept the reality that this University
cannot afford the loss of federal funds. Harvard University, one of the nation's
premier research institutions, would be adversely impacted by the abrupt
termination of millions of dollars in federal funding. To say that this decision is
just about money trivializes the significance these funds have on students'
educations, faculty careers, and scientific research that can lead to cures to lifethreatening
illnesses and debilitating diseases.
As a citizen, I am convinced that military service is both honorable and essential
to the well being of our country. I am deeply grateful for the sacrifices made by
military personnel and the security and other benefits they provide to all of us. As
Dean of Harvard Law School, I am also very proud of each and every graduate
who has gone into military service, and I hope the number increases. Precisely
because of this respect for military service, I believe that one way or another, all
students should have access to these exceptional opportunities to serve their
country.
This year and in future years, the Law School will welcome the military to recruit
through OCS. Our decision to allow the military to recruit through OCS, however,
does not imply that we support the military's personnel policies. The Law School
condemns the military's discriminatory practices and remains committed to the
principle of equal opportunity for all persons, without discrimination on the basis
of sexual orientation. We are dedicated not only to the rule of law, but also to the
advancement of a just society.
Going forward, I will be working with the leadership of LAMBDA and other HLS
student organizations, and with our faculty and administrators, to discuss
constructive measures that the Law School can take in support of its
nondiscrimination policy. A society that discriminates on the basis of sexual
orientation--- or that tolerates discrimination by its members---is not a just
society. I am hopeful that in the very near future the United States military will
adhere to the fundamental principles of equal opportunity and nondiscrimination.